Limitation bars remedy but does not destroy the right

The law of limitation bars the remedy in a court of law only when
the period of limitation has expired, but it does not extinguish the
right that cannot be enforced by judicial process. thus if a claim is
satisfied outside the court of law after the expiry of period of
limitation, that is not illegal. The intention of the law of limitation is,
not to give a right where there is none, but to impose a bar after a
certain period to institute suit to enforce an existing right. the object
is to compel litigants to be diligent in seeking remedies in courts of
law by prohibiting stale claims. it is to help the bona fide claimant
and to prevent fraud being practiced by people upon innocent
persons by keeping actions hanging on them for a long time.
Application cannot be maintained in a court of justice to enforce a
right but it does not destroy the right itself, example., a from time to
time advances money to b and each time he advances money to b,
he enters the item advanced in his account book. Let us suppose he
has advanced six items of money on six different dates, each
succeeding item being separated from the previous one by a period
of six months. four years after the first advance was made, the period
of three years fixed for the filing of the suit for the recovery of the
first item of advance has expired and the remedy of a for filing a suit
is barred by limitation. Here although the remedy is barred, the right
of a to recover the amount of the first advance is not extinguished,
but still survives although his right to file the suit for the recovery
thereof is barred by limitation. therefore, if b, the debtor, pays the
amount of the first advance after it has become barred, or if he pays
an amount without specifying towards which of the six advances it
might be credited and the creditor applies it, in the payment of the
first item of advance, the creditor will be fully justified in la\v in
doing so and the payment would not be allowed to be recalled on
the ground of failure of consideration. a barred debt is a good
consideration for a written promise to pay it.
So, the law of limitation does not bar a defence, it only bars action.
Section 27 of the limitation act is, however, an exception to the
general rule that the act bars only the remedy and does not
extinguish the right. in a suit for possession of any property on the
determination of the period of limitation not only the remedy but
the right also is extinguished under section 27 because it cannot be
recovered after the expiration of the period of limitation provided
for instituting a suit for its recovery. after a debt becomes barred a
person is still deemed to owe and it does not cease to be due. [first
national bank ltd. verses seth sandal,].
Salient features of the act
1. Application of the act
The act applies to all civil proceedings and some special
criminal proceedings which can be taken in a court of law
unless its application is excluded by any enactment. the act
extends to whole of india except the state of jammu & kashmir.

2. Proceedings under special act

The provisions of the limitation act apply only to proceeding in
"courts" and not to appeals or applications before bodies other
than courts such as quasi-judicial tribunals or executive
authorities, notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or
 authorities may be vested with certain specified powers
conferred on courts under the code of civil or criminal
procedure. but even in such a situation the relevant special
statute may contain an express provision conferring on the
appellate authority the power to extend the prescribed period
of limitation on sufficient cause being shown by laying down
that the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act shall be
applicable to such proceeding.

3. Limitation only applies to institution of proceedings, not to their

continuance
The bar of limitation arises only where a suit is instituted, an
appeal is preferred or an application is made after the
prescribed period of limitation. thus, the bar only applies
where a proceeding has been instituted after the period of
limitation. the bar does not apply to steps which constitute a
mere continuation of pending proceeding. thus, where an
application for execution has been filed within the period of
limitation, but subsequently, an application is made to continue
the execution proceeding, the latter application is not subject to
any period of limitation. similarly, where a suit is validly
instituted, but the plaint is returned for some purpose and
represented, such representation is only a continuation of the
suit and does not affect the question of limitation.

4. Limitation and writs under the constitution

The subject of limitation is dealt with in list iii i.e. concurrent
list vide entry 13 of the constitution of india. the legislature
may, without violating the fundamental rights, enact statutes
 prescribing limitation within which actions may be brought by
varying or changing the existing rules of limitation either by
shortening or extending time, provided a reasonable time is
allowed for enforcement of the existing right of action which
would become barred under the amended statute.

Constitutional validity of the limitation act, 1963

In tilokchand motichand verses. h.p. munshi, supreme court

held that the statute of limitation is not unconstitutional since it
applies to right of action in future. it is a shield and not a
weapon of offence. court further held that the state cannot
place any hindrance by prescribing a period of limitation in the
way of an aggrieved person seeking to approach the supreme
court of india under article 32 of the constitution. to put curbs
in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights through
legislative action might well be questioned under article 13(2) of
the constitution. court further held that a writ petition filed
before the supreme court is not a suit and is also not a petition
or application to which the limitation act applies, so limitation
act is not applied to writs.

5. Act not to apply to all applications

Although the limitation act 1963 gives a wider definition to
application yet it is clear that only certain and not all
applications are covered by the act despite the fact that the
words "other proceedings were added in the long title of the act
in 1963. the following applications are not covered by the act:—
 (1) an application for a succession certificate to collect the
debts due to the estate of a deceased person. (janaki verses.
kesavalu, 8 mad 207 (208)
(2) an application for probate or letters of administration
(kalinath verses. nagendra nath,)
(3) an application for revocation of a probate. (ashwini kumar
verses. sukhaharan).
(4) an application under the religious endowments act or an
application for the appointment of new trustees. (janaki
verses. kesavalu,)
(5) an application to a court to exercise the functions of a
ministerial character example. an application for the grant of
sale certificate (kylasa verses. ramasami)
(6) an application for a final decree in a suit for partition
(sudarsahn pande verses. lakshmidhar pande,)
(7) an application for election dispute (venkateswar rao
verses. narasimha reddy,)
(8) an application to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts
under section 151 of the civil procedure code (beeravu
verses. kathiyamma, )
(9) an application to a court to do what the court is bound to
do. (darbo verses. kesho,).

6. Prescribed period cannot be extended or curtailed by consent

Parties cannot by consent or agreement, extend or curtail the
period of limitation. similarly, the parties cannot waive or
contract themselves out of the law of limitation.
shorter term: any agreement which curtail the period of
limitation provided by this act will be void under section 28 of
 the indian contract act as it amounts to restraint of legal
proceedings.
extended term: any agreement which extends the period of
limitation will be void under section 23 of the indian contract
act as it is against the public policy and would defeat the
provisions of law.
no one can contract himself out of the statute of limitation, and
consequently where the result of a compromise between the
decree holder and the judgement-debtor was that the limitation
provided by law is extended, it was open to the judgement-
debtor to plead that the decree-holder application for
exemption was barred by limitation [goobardhan verses. dan
dayal].

7. Religious endowments and government

The provision of the limitation act apply without distinction to
suits concerning both sacred and secular property and makes
no difference if the plaintiffs in such suits are divine or human.
even the government is not entitled to an exemption from the
provisions of the limitation act.

8. Arbitration proceedings
Section 43 of the arbitration act, 1996 provides that the
provisions of the limitation act 1963 shall apply to any
arbitration proceedings under the act. so, under the arbitration
and conciliation act, 1996, the arbitral tribunal has the duty to
ascertain if the claim made by the claimant before the tribunal is
barred by limitation or not.
9. Limitation bars suit, not defence
The limitation does not bar plea as a defence. a defendant in a
suit can set up right in a defence though he would not have
enforced that right by a suit and the ground of defence cannot
become stale or barred by limitation. the statute of limitation
prescribes only the periods within which legal actions have to be
commenced, and not any period for setting up claims by way of
defence to such actions. thus, where by the time the mortgagor
initiated proceedings for redeeming the properties, the
mortgagee as remedy to enforce his claim by an action in a
court of law has become time-barred, :he mortgagee can put
forth his possessory lien over the properties as i e fence against
the claim for redemption and insist on payment of debts
egitimately due to him. such defences are not to be taken into
consideration, it the instance of the party prejudicially affected,
at the time of hearing the ippeal. it is important to take note of
the fact that the court must be sure hat on the facts established
on the evidence on record, the suit is not barred and only
thereafter it can exercise jurisdiction in a case even if plea of
imitation has not been taken up as a defence.

10. Res judicata and limitation

The doctrine of res-judicata applies equally to the decision on a
question of limitation as in the case of decision on any other
point. hence, the decision on a question of limitation may be
concluded in particular way by reason of the operation of the
above doctrine. however, it depends on the acts and
circumstances of each case whether the question of limitation is
res-judicata or not.
Difference between limitation and prescription
1. A Law of Limitation prescribes the time after which a suit or
other proceedings cannot be instituted in a court of law. a law
of prescription prescribes the time at the expiration of which
some substantive right may be acquired or may become
extinguished. prescription has, therefore, a twofold aspect: as
creating a right and extinguishing a right.
2. A Law of Limitation merely affects the remedy, it does not
touch the right of a person to the debt, damage, goods, person,
property, etc. but prescription extinguishes the right of action.
limitation is considered to be a species of prescription.
3. A Law of Limitation, as merely bars the remedy, is a part of the
procedural or adjective law. a law of prescription, as it affects
the substantive right itself, is a part of the substantive law.

A Law of prescription lays down the period at the expiry of

which a substantive or primary right is, under certain
circumstances, acquired or extinguished. the term 'prescription'
as used in the limitation act, excludes, and is opposed to
limitation. a person's right is extinguished by prescription when
he cannot assert it either judicially or extra-judicially. it perishes
so far as he is concerned. but since a mode of losing rights is
also often a mode of acquiring them the right is virtually,
though not expressly or directly, transferred to the person who
claims it by prescription. where prescription extinguishes the
substantive right itself, the remedy is necessarily lost or barred.
a prescription such as that dealt with by section 27 is an
distinctive prescription. where prescription not only bars the
remedy, and extinguishes the right of the original holder, but
 directly transfers his right to the opposing claimant, the latter
acquires a title against all the world. such a prescription is called
acquisitive prescription. a prescription such as that referred to
in section 25 belongs to this class.
Difference between limitation and estoppel

Limitation and Estoppel are different things, though the

operation of each is to prevent a party from asserting his right at
law, in the one case by shutting out a suit, and in the other case
by shutting out evidence.

1. Limitation is a rule of law. it comes into operation merely

because of the passivity of the plaintiff in not asserting his
rights quickly enough. It is not necessary, in order to avail
oneself of this defence, that there should have been any acts
or representations done or made by the other party. estoppel
is a rule of evidence; it arises by reason of some act,
statement or omission intentionally made by a party,
2. Again estoppel may apply to either party; a defendant may
be estopped from raising a particular defence, as much as a
plaintiff may be estopped from setting up a particular case.
Limitation, however, does not apply in a matter of defence.

Difference between limitation and laches

Laches means slackness or negligence, and hence, willful negligence
in asserting one's right. the doctrine of laches is based on the
principle, delay defeats equity. these are following difference
between limitation & laches:
1. The basis of the doctrine of laches is the same as that of the law
of limitation. in the latter case, however, a suit is dismissed if
not brought within the prescribed time and no other matters
are taken into consideration. in the case of laches, there is no
fixed period of time; the court will look into facts of each
particular case to see (a) whether there was an unreasonable
delay on the plaintiffs part; (b) whether the plaintiffs delay has
resulted in loss or destruction of evidence; and (c) whether the
plaintiff has, by his delay or omission, induced the defendant to
incur an expense or to alter his position.
2. In the case of limitation, the ignorance or knowledge of the
plaintiff with respect to his right is, in most cases, immaterial.
on the other hand, in order to defeat a claim on the ground of
laches, it would ordinarily be necessary to show that the
plaintiff had a sufficient knowledge of the facts, constituting his
title to the relief, and that he knowingly abstained himself to
assert his rights.
3. Limitation is based on consideration of public policy whereas
the doctrine of laches is based on equitable consideration.
limitation rests upon express law, laches depends upon general
principles.
Difference between laches and acquiescence

The doctrine of laches and doctrine of acquiescence have their

origin in the english courts of equity and applied to those cases
which were not covered by the statutes. laches is just a type of
acquiescence. in kisandas premchand verses. jivatlal protapshi & co.,
court observed, laches mean doing nothing. lapse of time or delay in
suing, unaccounted for by disability or other circumstances
constitutes laches. delay in seeking equitable remedy is technically
known as laches and will disentitle the claimant to establish his claim
even if the claim is not disputed. the domain of acquiescence is large
while that of laches is very small. Laches is merely passive, while
acquiescence implies almost active consent. where there is a statute
of limitation, the objection of laches does not apply until the
expiration of time allowed by the statute. but acquiescence is a
different thing; it means more than laches. if a party who could
object does not do so and knowingly permits another to incur an
expense in doing an act under a belief that it would not be objected
to, a kind of permission may be said to have been given to another
to alter his condition, and he may be said to acquiesce.
Acquiescence consist of tripartite factors which are, knowledge,
capacity and freedom, i.e., a person acquiescing must be fully
cognizant of his right to dispute the claim, he must be under no
disability and lastly, must be free from all undue influence or
pressure. mere delay is not, by itself, fatal to a suit but delay which
amounts to a waiver of the plaintiffs right by acquiescence or
conduct inducing a party to place himself in a position in which he
would not otherwise have placed himself, may be sufficient to
disqualify a plaintiff from asserting rights which are not actually
barred by limitation.

Note: In India, the statute of limitation being a complete code it has

been said in many cases that the equitable doctrine of laches and
acquiescence does not apply to suits for which a period of limitation
is provided by the limitation act.